ABSTRACT
Background Post-Covid-19 Condition (PCC) manifests in persistent, debilitating symptoms that affect multiple cognitive domains. These symptoms can negatively impact an affected individual’s health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Herein, we investigate the effects of cognitive function on HRQoL in persons with PCC. Secondarily, we determine whether vortioxetine modulates cognitive function on HRQoL.
Methods Participants aged 18-65 years were randomized to receive vortioxetine or placebo for 8 weeks. HRQoL was measured using the World Health organization Wellbeing Scale 5-item, cognition was measured using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test and the Trail-Making Test A/B. Generalized estimating equations were used to model the relationship of cognition to HRQoL for each treatment group.
Results 147 participants, 75.5% of which were female, were included in the analysis. At baseline, there was a statistically significant positive association between WHO-5 scores and combined DSST z-scores (β = 0.090, 95% CI [0.051, 0.129], p < 0.001), and a statistically significant negative association with TMT-A (β = −0.007, 95% CI [-0.011, −0.003], p < 0.001) and -B (β = −0.002, 95% CI [-0.003, 0.000], p = 0.024) scores, respectively. A significant treatment, time, and combined DSST z-score interaction on changes in overall WHO-5 total score (χ2 = 15.481, p = 0.004) was reported. After adjusting for the type of cognitive test, there was a significant between-group difference (mean change = 1.77, SEM = 0.868, p = 0.042) favoring vortioxetine.
Conclusion Cognitive function is significantly associated with HRQoL in persons with PCC where enhanced cognitive functioning is associated with a better HRQoL. Vortioxetine is effective in improving HRQoL through enhancing cognitive function. Cognitive function in persons with PCC provides the impetus for future therapeutic targets for persons with PCC. Future studies should aim to investigate pro-cognitive therapeutic strategies.
INTRODUCTION
Post-coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) Condition (PCC) is a common and debilitating phenomenon that is associated with substantial physiological and societal costs (Ceban et al., 2022; Health Organization, n.d.). The onset of PCC typically occurs within three months after a confirmed or probable diagnosis of acute infection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, where symptoms remain for at least 2 months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis (Hinman & Maher, 2024). The pathoetiology of PCC remains incompletely understood but is likely heterogeneous, as evidenced by its multiple risk factors, such as sex, body mass index, general health comorbidities, and vaccination status, complex and diverse presentations, including but not limited to fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, muscle spasms, tachycardia, and variable effects on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (Premraj et al., 2022; Soriano et al., 2022; Tsampasian et al., 2023). More than 200 symptoms have been attributed to PCC, of which cognitive impairment is one of the most prevalent, persistent, and debilitating (Ceban et al., 2022). Reports of deficits in both objective and subjective cognitive functioning have been noted in individuals with PCC, including brain fog, memory impairment, and difficulties concentrating (Premraj et al., 2022). As these symptoms are present in multiple psychiatric and neurological conditions, they remain as a challenging therapeutic target with few safe and efficacious treatments available.
Individuals living with PCC have reported decreases in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using a variety of PRO measures (Premraj et al., 2022). The heterogeneous presentation of PCC invites the need to characterize better the specific aspects of PCC that mediate such a decrease in HRQoL. Targeting mediators of HRQoL in PCC can potentially improve PROs, which provides the impetus for therapeutic strategies that broadly aim to improve HRQoL.
Previous literature exploring MDD, has identified cognitive function to mediate HRQoL outcomes (G. Wang et al., 2020). Vortioxetine, an antidepressant, is being investigated for its effects in major depressive disorder (MDD). Within the MDD cohort, treatment with vortioxetine significantly improved depressive symptoms, cognitive function, and improved measures of both reward and motivation; whereas other standard-of-treatment antidepressants did not (Cao et al., 2019; McIntyre et al., 2016). These pro-cognitive effects have been attributed to vortioxetine’s ability to target brain-derived neurotrophic factor to increase synaptic plasticity and synaptogenesis (Subramaniapillai et al., 2019). Overall, vortioxetine has shown promising preliminary results in improving multiple domains of cognition.
Herein, we sought to determine the extent to which subjective and objective measures of cognitive function mediate HRQoL in a well-characterized cohort of individuals meeting the criteria for World Health Organization (WHO)-defined PCC. Moreover, we examined the impact of vortioxetine on the relationship between cognitive function and HRQoL between the placebo and vortioxetine groups from baseline to primary endpoint.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ethics and Recruitment
This is a post-hoc evaluation of a randomized, double-blind, flexible-dosed, placebo controlled clinical trial examining the effectiveness of vortioxetine in treating PCC patient’s cognitive impairments. The methodology, and data for this study, are sourced from a primary study that is now published (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05047952) (McIntyre et al., 2023).
The principles of Good Clinical Practice and Declaration of Helsinki were followed during this clinical trial, which consisted of participants residing in Canada (ICH Official Website:ICH, n.d., WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, n.d.). Advarra, a local research ethics board (REB) that complies with Health Canada regulations, approved the research design of this paper (IRB #00000971).
Recruitment of participants spanned from November 2021 to January 2023 via media/social media advertisements (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, print) and/or through referrals by medical practitioners. All qualified participants during the screening phase provided their written informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.
Participants and Randomization
Individuals were eligible for the study if they were aged 18 years or older residing in Canada, with a confirmed history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (i.e., verified through a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, rapid antigen test, or serology test) or a probable infection (i.e., demonstrated by a healthcare provider’s signed confirmation of a presumptive case or a clinical diagnosis by the study’s physician). Additionally, eligible individuals were required to meet WHO-defined PCC criteria (i.e., have experienced symptoms post-SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring within 3 months after the acute COVID-19 infection). Moreover, eligible individuals were required to report subjective cognitive impairment as measured by the 5-item perceived deficits Questionnaire (PDQ-5) at screening/baseline. Any participants that met the exclusion criteria detailed in the supplementary materials (Table S1) were not included in the study.
Study Design
Participants qualifying for this study were randomized (1:1) to either receive vortioxetine (5-20 mg per day) or an identical placebo for 8 weeks of a double-blind treatment. Participants between the age of 18 and 65 assigned to the vortioxetine cohort received 10 mg per day of vortioxetine during week 1 and 2, with a dose increase to 20 mg per day during weeks 3 to 8. Participants aged 65 and older in the vortioxetine cohort received 5 mg per day for weeks 1 and 2 followed by a dose increase to 10 mg per day for weeks 3 to 8. With respect to individuals unable to tolerate their higher dose, the medication was titrated to the index dose.
Participant assessments were scheduled at baseline and at weeks 2, 4 and 8. Any participants discontinuing the study prematurely were evaluated at the earliest possible time post-study withdrawal. Two members of the staff were unblinded and designated for labeling and dispensing the investigational product, and were devoid of any interactions with participants. The randomization code was maintained for all participants during the study.
Outcome Measures
The primary outcome measure of the primary trial was cognitive performance as measured by the Digital Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) Pen/Paper Version and Online CogState Version as part of the CogState Online Cognitive Battery (McIntyre et al., 2023). A list of all secondary outcome measures from the primary trial is reported elsewhere (McIntyre et al., 2023).
In the post-hoc analysis herein, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between cognition as measured by the DSST and health-related quality of life as measured by the 5-item World Health Organisation Well-Being Index (WHO-5). The DSST was measured at baseline, week 2 and week 8. The WHO-5 was measured at baseline and weeks 2, 4 and 8.
Additional secondary outcomes of interest as potential covariates include a separate measure of cognitive function as measured by the Trails Making Tests A/B (TMT-A/B) and depressive symptom severity as measured by the 16-Item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report Questionnaire (QID-SR-16). The TMT-A/B was measured at baseline, week 2 and week 8. The QIDS-SR-16 was measured at baseline and weeks 2, 4 and 8.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were executed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 29.0.1.1 (15) with a set threshold for the two-sided statistical significance at α = 0.05. An intent-to-treat analysis assessed the variation from baseline to week 8 in the WHO-5 total scores using generalized estimating equation (GEE) models. The data was best represented by an independent structure, which was subsequently chosen. For assessing the changes in WHO-5 total scores from baseline which were modified by DSST, an intent to treat (ITT) analysis (i.e., including all randomized participants) was employed.
Of the 149 randomized participants, 11 (7.4%) only used the Pen/Paper Version of the DSST; 78 (52.3%) exclusively used the CogState Version, and 60 (40.3%) completed both the Pen/Paper and Online CogState Versions. For those who completed both DSST formats, a significantly high correlation was found between their performances on Pen/Paper and Online CogState Version (r = 0.588, p < 0.001). Given that not all participants did both versions, subsequent analyses were performed using the combined DSST scores. If they completed both Online CogState and Pen/Paper DSST, the combined DSST scores were based on participant’s Online CogState DSST. If the Online CogState DSST was not completed, then the participants’ Pen/Paper DSST scores were included in the combined DSST scores. The definition of the composite DSST z-score is the equally weighted sum of the z-scores in the combined DSST scores (Pen/Paper plus Online CogState Version).
RESULTS
Patient Characteristics
Baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the intent-to-treat population are described in Table 1. Of the 200 participants enrolled, 149 were randomized to receive either vortioxetine (n = 75), or placebo (n = 74). Two participants were excluded due to missing data. No statistically significant differences were observed between the treatment groups.
Impact of Cognitive Function on Health-Related Quality of Life at Baseline
Results from the generalized linear model analysis demonstrate a significant positive correlation between self-reported WHO-5 scores and both the combined DSST z-score (β = 0.090, 95% CI [0.051, 0.129], p < 0.001) and Pen/Paper DSST (β = 0.008, 95% CI [0.002, 0.013], p = 0.005) (Table 2). In contrast, TMT-A (β = −0.007, 95% CI [-0.011, −0.003], p < 0.001), TMT-B (β = −0.002, 95% CI [-0.003, 0.000], p = 0.024), and PDQ-20 (β = −0.012, 95% CI [-0.014, −0.010], p < 0.001) show a significant negative correlation with WHO-5 scores (Table 2).
Impact of Vortioxetine on How Cognitive Function Affects Health-Related Quality of Life
Intent-to-treat GEE analysis was performed on 147 participants with PCC randomized to receive either vortioxetine (n = 73) or placebo (n = 74) to determine the effect of vortioxetine on HRQoL with DSST-measured cognitive function as a moderator (Figure 1). After adjustment for sociodemographics and the type of cognitive test (Pen/Paper vs. Online CogState Version), a significant treatment by time interaction (χ2 = 6.285, p = 0.012) was observed. Time (χ2 = 13.460, p < 0.001) and group (χ2 = 3.932, p = 0.047) effects were also significant. Moreover, there was a significant treatment, time, and combined DSST z-score interaction (χ2= 15.481, p = 0.004).
The change in WHO-5-measured quality of life, as a function of DSST-measured cognitive symptoms, from baseline to week 8 was 3.43 (SEM = 0.630) for the vortioxetine group (p < 0.001) and 0.740 (SEM = 0.698) for the placebo group (p = 0.211) (Figure 1, Table 3). Between-group analyses identified a significant difference in overall change in WHO-5 total score in favor of vortioxetine (mean difference = 2.02, SEM = 0.736, p = 0.006) (Table 3). Similar results were observed in the model adjusted only for the type of cognitive test (time: χ2 = 21.196, p < 0.001; treatment by time interaction: χ2 = 6.962, p = 0.008; treatment x time x combined DSST z-score interaction effect: χ2= 25.025, p < 0.001; and a significant between-group difference: mean change = 1.77, SEM = 0.868, p = 0.042) (Table 3). However, the group effect (χ2= 1.095, p = 0.295) was insignificant, indicating that participants’ WHO-5 scores improved over time, but at similar rates within each treatment group.
Intent-to-treat GEE analysis was also performed with TMT-A-measured cognitive function as a moderator. In contrast, there was no significant treatment (χ2= 0.001, p = 0.974), treatment by time interaction (χ2 = 1.240, p = 0.265), and treatment by time by TMT-A score interaction (χ2 = 6.721, p = 0.151) effect. However, there was a significant time (χ2= 6.857, p = 0.009) effect. Between-group analyses identified an insignificant difference in overall change in favor of vortioxetine (mean difference = −0.03, SEM = 1.094, p = 0.976). Similar results were observed in the unadjusted model (time: χ2 = 6.025, p = 0.014; group: χ2 = 1.822, p = 0.177; treatment by time interaction: χ2 = 0.214, p = 0.643; treatment by time by TMT-A score interaction effect: χ2= 10.533, p = 0.032; and insignificant between-group difference: mean change = −0.98, SEM = 1.496, p = 0.511).
The Intent-to-treat GEE analysis with TMT-B-measured cognitive function as a moderator also showed insignificance (treatment: χ2 = 1.159, p = 0.282; time: χ2 = 5.783, p = 0.016; treatment by time interaction: χ2 = 0.174, p = 0.677; treatment by time by TMT-B score interaction: χ2 = 4.442, p = 0.350 effect; and insignificant between-group difference: mean difference = 0.23, SEM = 1.211, p = 0.847). Similar results were observed in the unadjusted model (time: χ2 = 4.017, p = 0.045; group: χ2 = 0.026, p = 0.873; treatment by time interaction: χ2 = 0.164, p = 0.686; treatment by time by TMT-B score interaction effect: χ2 = 5.072, p = 0.280; and insignificant between-group difference: mean change = 0.23, SEM = 1.211, p = 0.847)
When self-reported PDQ-20-measured cognitive function was used as a moderator, time (χ2= 1.663, p = 0.197), group (χ2 = 1.874, p = 0.171), and treatment by time interaction effects (χ2 = 2.577, p = 0.108) were not significant. Although treatment by time by PDQ-20 score interaction effects (χ2 = 49.447, p < 0.001) were significant, there were no significant mean group differences at week 8 between the treatment groups (mean difference = 0.77, SEM = 0.612, p = 0.207). Similar results were observed in the unadjusted model (time: χ2 = 0.550, p = 0.458; group: χ2 = 0.466, p = 0.495; treatment by time interaction: χ2 = 0.326, p = 0.568; treatment by time by PDQ-20 score interaction effect: χ2 = 103.164, p < 0.001; and insignificant between-group difference: mean change = 0.58, SEM = 0.767, p = 0.451).
DISCUSSION
Herein, we observed that both subjective and objective cognitive impairments are significantly associated with HRQoL in individuals with PCC who did not meet criteria for an active mood episode (e.g., depression). More specifically, we found that at baseline, self-reported cognitive impairment (i.e., PDQ-20) was negatively correlated with HRQoL, and objective cognitive functioning (i.e., DSST and TMT-A/B) was positively correlated with HRQoL. This suggests that at baseline, cognitive functioning impacted self-reported quality of life, such that higher cognitive performance conferred better HRQoL. Furthermore, participants’ WHO-5 scores improved over time and at different rates within each treatment group, indicating that vortioxetine’s effect on reducing cognitive impairment significantly enhanced HRQoL compared to placebo.
It is well documented that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant increase in distress, mental illness, loneliness, and a decrease in quality of life (Tsampasian et al., 2023). Furthermore, mental illness is known to be a risk factor for COVID-19 (CDC, 2024b; Ceban et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2020; Wagner et al., 2022; Y. Wang et al., 2021). Extant literature suggests that cognitive impairment in other mental and medical disorders is a principal quality of life detractor (Ceban et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023; McIntyre et al., 2023). Not only does cognitive decline lead to reduced role functioning, but it is also associated with a decreased reward anhedonic tone. In the foregoing context, it is further speculated that impairment in quality of life as a consequence of cognitive impairment is not limited to its immediate effects, but cascades into economic uncertainty, housing instability, and employment insecurity, thereby compounding the overall challenges to one’s quality of life (Ceban et al., 2021, 2022; Oliver et al., 2023; Quan et al., 2023). In PCC, it has been postulated that cognitive impairment may result in social disconnection that amplifies aspects of loneliness, igniting a cascade of health-related concerns including, but not limited to, anxiety and a decreased sense of purpose (Cao et al., 2019). Vortioxetine has been found to improve cognitive function by enhancing effort-based decision making and reward tone (Subramaniapillai et al., 2019). Thus, the effects of vortioxetine on cognition, and ultimately HRQoL, in persons with PCC provides evidence for the potential use of vortioxetine for other mental illnesses that are associated with cognitive impairment.
Several methodological limitations affect inferences and interpretations of our data. For example, this was a post-hoc analysis of data obtained as part of a primary study and it was not pre-specified in the protocol that we would be exploring the possible impact of objective and subjective cognitive functions on HRQoL. Although we ruled out other medical disorders as a primary reason for presentation, it is possible that other medical conditions that the patient had experienced in the past which could affect cognitive function were not mentioned. Furthermore, our self-reported measure of cognitive function in PCC was the PDQ-20 and objective cognitive measures were the DSST and TMT-A/B. It is possible that findings would be expanded if other cognitive measures were included. In addition, our sample was heterogeneous with respect to acute COVID-19 severity, duration of PCC, number of prior COVID-19 infections, as well as number and type of prior vaccinations.
CONCLUSION
Taken together, we identify cognitive impairment as a significant contributor to decreased HRQoL in individuals with PCC. The Department of Health and Human Services in the United States has identified therapeutics that improve cognitive function in individuals with PCC as a primary and urgent therapeutic target (CDC, 2024a). Practitioners providing care for individuals living with PCC should query the presence of cognitive complaints and, until an identified therapeutic is established, encourage practical approaches to preserve and possibly improve cognitive functions (e.g., improve sleep, exercise, decrease alcohol and substance use). It is a testable hypothesis for further research to establish that pro-cognitive strategies could benefit measures of HRQoL in persons with PCC, associated decreased illness burden, and economic costs to the individuals in society.
DISCLOSURES
Dr. Roger S. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR, GACD, National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. Roger McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.
Kayla M. Teopiz has received fees from Braxia Scientific Corp.
Dr. Joshua D. Rosenblat has received research grant support from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), Physician Services Inc (PSI) Foundation, Labatt Brain Health Network, Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation (BCDF), Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Psychiatric Association, Academic Scholars Award, American Psychiatric Association, American Society of Psychopharmacology, University of Toronto, University Health Network Centre for Mental Health, Joseph M. West Family Memorial Fund and Timeposters Fellowship and industry funding for speaker/consultation/research fees from iGan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Allergan, Lundbeck, Sunovion and COMPASS
FUNDING
The primary clinical trial was sponsored by the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation (BCDF) through an unrestricted research grant from H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark. BCDF functions as a non-profit research organization. No specific grant from public, commercial, or not-for-profit funding organizations was given to the authors of this post hoc analysis.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data and research materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, R.S.M, upon reasonable request and will be anonymized.
SUPPLEMENTARY
Footnotes
↵† denotes co-first authorship
angela.kwan{at}mail.utoronto.ca
mlakh088{at}uottawa.ca
hanny.le{at}mail.utoronto.ca
gsingh93{at}student.ubc.ca
kayla.teopiz{at}mail.utoronto.ca
ziji.guo{at}mail.utoronto.ca
amanku{at}student.ubc.ca
joshua.rosenblat{at}uhn.ca
roger.mcintyre{at}bcdf.org
REFERENCES
